Thoughts, Epiphanies, Insights, & Quotables
Replies
-
Good to know you’re still out there Nic!
1 -
A thought as I was leaving the gym this morning. How nice it is to be able to have my arms down flat at my sides. I noticed a larger exerciser whose arms bowed out as mine once did. Said a little prayer of encouragement for her - hope she finds a bit of the body comfort I’ve experienced.
Even if I’m over where I need to be - it’s still better!2 -
Ooh, yes, nice Yooly
0 -
Lost the food control battle today…. I think I know what triggered it but still not proud of myself. Hoping to get the emotions under control tomorrow. That way it’s just one lost day.
2 -
(Hugs)
Good idea, tomorrow is another day.
1 -
❤️🩹
💩 happens
1 -
Where ought we talk food approach and experimentations?
I'ma having some thoughts re approaches
2 -
What's wrong with here and now? 🤷🏼♀️
You could also start an @yakkystuff 's deep thoughts thread if you prefer! 🤯
1 -
Ok.
Waiting for them to return.
Other than exploring mushrooms, now havw 3 lunchsacks of baby cremini mushrooms! Had some in morning saute.
2 -
Mushrooms seem to be quite a good caloric bargain! And I actually like them. and they appear to be very nutritious for their calories as far as I can tell!
Wondering thoughts wonder if you don't immediately type them! Type first… worry second!0 -
Mushrooms & onions seem to go really well together in an omelette, super low calorie and very nice macro profile. I just started adding 2 breakfast sausage links, diced up, into the mix for more savoury flavour. Around 350 calories.
Of course you could add other veggies and cheese, which is more my default way to omelette, but I am really enjoying this more minimalist approach 😋
2 -
@Yoolypr sorry to hear this. I have been anything but stellar lately myself. Tomorrow is another day!
2 -
I love mushrooms. Often I will eat them sauteed as a side. I also add them to soups, eggs, etc
2 -
Turns out the mushrooms are shitake - have not tried before, so will be adding to things. They are rather mild, I thought.
Re approach we shifted to DASH food exchanges, but I hope to shift back to the myplate - the picture is very easy to interpret - manual tracking of the DASH exchanges is a pain and not as intuitive when pulling meals together. Either way, do like to crosscheck with food tracker to understand new foods and recipes.
2 -
hmm, I admit to never having tried the "exchange" thing—I think it used to involve little cards that you would trade from one pile to the other!
The closest I've come to an exchange I guess, is a "bunny" ;-) And I sort of more went into that as a joke, TBH.
I sort of figured that if I am going to keep track I might as well keep track, i.e. I didn't need to introduce more uncertainty in the tracking.
And, of course, since I am a rebel without a clue deep down, if I am tracking I might as well just aim for general ranges over a couple of days with as few minimums and maximums as I can to reduce road rage!
Who knows. Now with AI's maybe automatic recognition based on size will start becoming more feasible… and then true auto-logging will become possible! Well. It's probably a couple of years away for now!
I think that my own eating way's DASH similarities diverge hugely in the sweets and candy bars department. And a bit in the grains department as I don't seem to feel that they are essential whereas they seem to be much more emphasized in the Dash diet. Seasonings of course (sriracha and lemon pepper which are two of my favorites both have sodium). And eggs seem to be lower on the desirability index whereas I seem to believe that egg whites are a free for all!
hmmm. I am not quite as dashing as I would like to believe myself to be!
0 -
Yep, lol
Same on the salt - why she moved us to Dash
Calorie counting is the freest form of all.
When I thought to stop eating the family sized treat bags.... I thought... what now.
Mom was introduced to the diabetic exchange and I helped her with that, and later years, carb counting for her meds.
Her docs sent her every which way but cured… It was so terrible/distressing to see her go through the decline. I don't want that. Hence, trying what I can.
All of exchanges, points... are different "choice" systems , with calorie counting being top line most flexible. I find the others harder except mom ordered Richard Simmons 'Deal a Meal' system on cards, like poker size cards. That was a bit easier because it was physical, like spending cash.
For conceptualizing meals, I find my plate easy visual. I like 4 meals a day emotionally. Low salt, low carb for health. If I do that, body responds and does better.
But top line for me is eat at maintenance, or less when emotionally tolerable. Anything lower is bonus. If I do that, scale follows.
What I have also realized, finally, is how much food can help or hurt our bodies. I'm all about the help, emotionally happy making, and eating without compulsions.
If I can't resist a food, i don't keep it at home - have to respect the trigger until it is no longer a trigger. I am not willing to say never.
2 -
All the diff diets are someone's ideas - sometimes, I can't imagine. One doc suggested eating 2 fistfuls of food, approximately...
How does that compare to a ginormous fajita platter at our fav restaurant?
Not! And I sure know which one is funner!
So mentioned I find the DASH exchange system more difficult and myplate (for diabetics) easy.
Diabetes myplate has all starchy carbs (potatoes, fall squash, etc), fruits, dairy together in the carb area instead of in separate areas, and effectively limits the starchy carbs.
So, my home plate recently 3/4c noodles, 1c meat sauce, 2c mixed veg.
- For the win, vegs were more than I could eat.
- Have a glimpse that maybe some day, less will be ok
There were some books dropped off at the clubhouse. Found one dated 2007 that we had looked at when I was helping mom - she passed on it. Snagged it - The spine was not even cracked.
'Dietary approaches have evolved so much, it ought to be an interesting lookback, and I will peek at the menus and recipes for ideas.
Just took out another ever lovin' package of chicken breast to thaw for tomorrow. On the hunt for something yummy to do with it.
1 -
The book dietary approach is vegan/vegetarian, plant based proteins, low to no fat, plant vegetable oils only.
Complete opposite of carnivore family is doing.
Bit of whiplash with opposing approaches. Browsing the recipes.
2 -
hmmmm….. you do remember the hierarchy of needs and all that jazz, right? Start with the calories. IF the calories ain't "right", the weight won't follow. Now I get that you're on the diabetic thing ;-) Though I am not sure how much of a blood pressure/diabetic numbers scare you're operating under.
I will take a pass on the super-duper nutri-knowledge on how to tackle though I will throw in there that things such as oats and bunnies and less salt I've never heard as being not good for either issue!
I, personally, think that if one finds themselves with fat reserves such that they are legitimately obese then the main path to improvement is obvious. If they're within the normal weight range or slightly in the overweight range (let's call it up to bmi 27) then the plot becomes a bit more obscure because the "easy" intervention may not be there.
Sure. If someone is 100% willing to change their food choices for the long term, removing carbs and sugars in particular cannot but help diabetic numbers. But. Hierarchy of needs.
Start with things you think you can work with and move to other stuff if the first batch didn't work. And don't drop what's already working in an elusive quest for better. Assuming that something IS working.
That's it for my $000000.002 thoughts of the day! :)
0 -
Hmmm….. something mentioned by someone on the main boards made be cross-post a question to our electricity consumers in the sky… and I have to admit that the answer by google gemini's deep research impressed me and is probably worth a read…
https://g.co/gemini/share/81cb1a840d61Please note that I come from the point of view where I think that the activity helps but is not NECESSARY. And from the point of view that there are stages and that initially/short term the imbalances are more acute when transitioning from loss to maintenance and that longer term things stabilize. And that, for a lot of us, a substantial part of the "wrong sizing" is not because of actual hunger. And the balance of physical activity and intake only deals with actual hunger.
So much as I find the review interesting and a substantial time savings, if I were looking at this more comprehensively I would raise additional questions having to do with older populations, or where physical impediments do not allow for exercise or having to do with the effect of non hunger reasons for calories in or even having to do with hyperpalatable foods and all that. Not to mention that set-point is, I believe, not actually recognize currently as valid so I would question the validity of that too ;-)
1 -
Pending time to reflect & reply - soon
1 -
Might also be interesting to pose it as your own question so that you can interact with the prompts.
For example:
"I thought set point was no longer considered a valid mainstream theory, how would that change your answer?"
"IS there a time dimension to all this? Is the post weight loss need to increase caloric expenditure a permanent issue or does it eventually resolve?"
"Why are we assuming that all drivers are physical? Isn't it just as likely or more likely that a lot of the drivers are behavioral or psychological. Also the fact that there is reduced need to burn calories does not directly translate to the fact that appetite is outsized. While adaptive thermogenesis may be longer term what is the discussion re: the attenuation of hormonal changes over time?"
"Not all research and articles are equally valid. You have mentioned HAES a couple of times. Is there as scientific consensus that it has a valid point? Someone can be healthy and active at 35. This does not mean they will make 75. And the largest loser studies had several issues with them, primarily among them that losing weight immediately prior to testing will create a thermogenic adaptation and many of the participants when tested six years later had just done exactly that. i.e. they were not tested 6 years post loss but actually during a deficit. So assuming both of these points are valid which you should only do if you can find credible support for them, how does this change your analysis?"
Chortle chortle…. poor googly is trying… and so are we all!
0 -
Doc brought up set point with me last Oct - think it is still a mainstream theory.
1 -
Off to get out for evening…
1 -
smart yakky… I'm about to join you!
0 -
I’m not sure about set points and increased activity at my advanced age. For me obesity was not driven by physical true hunger - it was mainly psychological, emotional and even learned behavior. I can go far past the point of simple necessity.
Often after the first few bites I didn’t really taste, enjoy or care about the actual food. Try as I might, meals end up meh no matter how gourmet. It’s about filling up some void emotionally. Satisfying some emptiness from childhood?
Even now I rarely “look forward” to a specific food. But damned if I don’t eat it all anyway because I was trained to clean my plate. So for me it’s been retraining my relationship with food. And let me tell you bad habits DIE HARD!
1 -
I may be posting this in debates later…. it is a newer version of the interaction with Gemini that I linked to above.
After a main forum discussion re: the importance on physical activity as a maintenance strategy, I tried to browbeat poor Gemini 2.5 Flash Deep Research into a more comprehensive and well cited report primarily focused on maintenance strategies.
I am sharing the ~25 page never to be finished as intended, report in progress. Come on… it is easy to read ;-)
Why share unfinished? Because it is not a bad overview of things even though I still wanted to work on aspects.
Sadly during the editing process Gemini went SPLAT instead of generating the edits it was promising in the last bit which I am including as a referenceI won't be continuing to work on this as I don't have either the access or ability to do so with either Gemini or any of the other currently accessible versions of the AI's :-)
Last bit before the crash was:
I have completed the targeted searches to re-evaluate the evidence, particularly concerning HAES/Intuitive Eating and the persistence/reversibility of metabolic adaptations.
Here's a summary of my findings and how they will shape the revised report:
1. HAES and Intuitive Eating (IE) for Weight Management and Hard Clinical Outcomes:
- Consistent finding: Both HAES and IE interventions consistently show benefits for psychological well-being, body image, and eating behaviors (e.g., reduced disordered eating, increased body satisfaction, improved eating competence).
- Weight Outcomes:
- For HAES, systematic reviews indicate that while it improves psychological and behavioral outcomes, and sometimes cardiometabolic risk factors (like cholesterol), the evidence for long-term weight maintenance is inconsistent, with some reviews stating that "current evidence suggest a they may not be maintained over time" regarding body weight. There's a call for "large long-term clinical trials to establish the effectiveness of HAES®-based interventions in improving health for people with overweight and obesity" beyond these psychological and behavioral benefits. Some studies even note weight gain in some participants, albeit with improvements in risk factors.
- For Intuitive Eating, systematic reviews and meta-analyses generally conclude that "Weight loss is not a focus of IE" and that there is "little evidence from the clinical studies of a cause-and-effect relationship between participation in an IE programme and weight reduction." While some "some evidence" for weight maintenance exists, it's not a primary or consistently robust finding. It's often presented as an alternative to traditional weight loss, focusing on a healthier relationship with food rather than weight outcomes.
- Hard Clinical Outcomes (Mortality, CVD events): Direct, robust evidence (e.g., large-scale meta-analyses of RCTs) demonstrating that HAES or IE directly cause improvements in hard clinical outcomes like mortality or major cardiovascular events independent of weight change is not consistently found in the browsed results. The evidence primarily focuses on risk factors (like cholesterol or blood pressure), psychological health, and eating behaviors. Intentional weight loss itself, in individuals with obesity, is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality (as per a meta-analysis of RCTs cited in my previous browse results).
Conclusion for HAES/IE Inclusion: Given the user's strict requirement for "robust evidence-based and cited information" and focus on "weight management," and the consistent scientific finding that HAES and IE primarily benefit psychological and behavioral aspects with less consistent or direct evidence for long-term weight loss/maintenance or hard clinical outcomes, they will not be included as core strategies for weight maintenance via caloric restriction or physical activity in this report. Their discussion would necessitate a different framing (e.g., "alternative approaches to health that de-emphasize weight") which falls outside the current scope focused on traditional weight management paradigms and their physiological challenges.
2. Long-Term Persistence and Reversibility of Metabolic Adaptation and Hormonal Changes:
- Metabolic Adaptation (Adaptive Thermogenesis):
- The "Biggest Loser" follow-up study (PMID: 27136388) explicitly found persistent metabolic adaptation (reduced RMR) 6 years after the competition, with those most successful at maintenance experiencing greater ongoing slowing. This indicates that while body composition changes account for some RMR reduction, an adaptation occurs beyond that.
- However, a more nuanced perspective from Catia Martins (UAB News release, 'Weight loss may take longer than expected due to metabolic adaptation') states that "metabolic adaptation is not a permanent adaptation. It is significantly reduced or even disappears after a short period of weight stabilization, let's say a couple of weeks." This indicates a potential for attenuation or recovery once weight stabilizes, challenging the notion of permanent suppression. The key here is "weight stabilization" vs. "active deficit."
- The Minnesota Starvation Experiment (Psychology Today source) infers that longer restriction takes longer for metabolism and body weight to return to normal, supporting a time-dependent recovery, particularly for severe restriction.
- Hormonal Changes:
- Healthline's article lists strategies to "improve" or "maintain healthy levels" of hormones like leptin, ghrelin, etc., indicating that while changes occur, some management or normalization is possible through consistent lifestyle. — In the next iteration I would have tried to look into the healthline article sources to see if the conclusions appeared to be supported.
Conclusion for Adaptations: I will present that metabolic adaptation and hormonal changes are persistent challenges that make weight maintenance difficult. I will incorporate the nuance that while metabolic adaptation can persist, there is also evidence it may attenuate or disappear after periods of weight stabilization, suggesting it's not universally "permanent damage" but a physiological resistance that can fluctuate with dietary state. Hormonal drives, however, show more robust evidence for long-term persistence, contributing to increased appetite and drive to regain. The idea that "durations of maintenance that are not equal to or longer than the initial deficit periods may be insufficient to show full recovery" is an inference from the Minnesota study regarding severe restriction and may not be a universally accepted or directly evidenced "rule" for all weight loss, but the principle of time-dependent recovery holds.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19Hn9xtOHbvyFwCumiAYUd4I8ypXvGzP86TfI54dEhE4/edit?usp=sharing
And to be clear: I am firmly in the camp that a) there does exist stabilization after sufficient time and that one of the main maintenance failure issues is surviving the initial "storms" * b) that psychological, social, and environmental, if you will, aspects are way more relevant drivers than just the willingness to balance food and exercise: in the end you have to make enough changes in your life so that you end up in an environment that sufficiently mitigates your more egregious impediments to weight maintenance most of the time c) that a lot of research is based on low hanging fruit. the weight control registry is just that: an easy to access fruit. it offers an aspect of things that might work. but it doesn't offer a prescription re: these are the only things that will work.*because personally, after a good year and a half of fairly rapid losses and year and a half of maintenance (or very small deficits) and continuous conscious effort of trying to balance activity to intake to continue to manage weight all of a sudden things became "easier" and generally speaking my "eating urges" started to appear to me to be more right sized towards my activity level and to increase/decrease as per my activity absent other (psychological, societal, extreme temptation) factors.
2 -
Interesting! I do think the research is targeted and relevant to younger persons. The older you are when attempting maintenance can be a whole lot more difficult. More variables and obstacles.
1 -
Now there is more to read & ponder… thanks Pav... will look at it in a moment.... ;)
@Yoolypr - thinking someone asked why the deference to the registered dietician? Can't put my finger on the orig Q... but regarding that & our whys....
Our Doc referred us to a health managememt program for a year — which includes an RD and frequent meetings — who has us going through approaches.
Started with calorie counting & diabetes version of myplate/lower carb
- for appetite,
- Stop/reign in overeating,
- healthier food choices, less salt.
Moved us to Dash and to use exchanges and hand estimators instead of calorie counting. Said it incorporates health targets for heart/cardiovascular, cholesterol, etc
- Salt 1500mg now; 1300 soon
- Cholesterol 150mg
- Sat fat 7.5g
- Potassium increase.
- Fiber 30g+
- Mediteranean/healthy food choices
I find the visual idea from MyPlate/CiCo easy for 1 meal
and DASH exchanges for a Day much harder - requires a cheat sheet she will review after vacation - and will have a chance to talk more then.
Glad for the opportunity. Find it rather mainstream - after going through similar approaches with mom for her diabetes.
Now wishing i had kept her books. Rerversing Diabetes was recommended to her but she never bought it.
Very similar to Pritikin and Ornish and the super low fat, eat mostly plants era - and of course… Michael Pollan
0 -
@PAV8888 - what is wrong with MFP???
— Won't let me quote Pav (permission probs) , can't edit my last post (format probs) and things evaporate with forum timeouts! Blargh!!)
Reply 1 to Post 1 from Pav
snippet - Pav asked the Chatbot:
"research on metabolic adaptation following weight loss, including how the body's energy expenditure and hunger signals change, and how these physiological responses influence the long-term success of different weight maintenance strategies."
/end snippet
Wow, what an extensive chatbot response, felt like masterclass level skills required in thinking skills although chatbot did a good job in presenting concepts in understandable ways.
Set Point thoughts
Mentioned it still seems mainstream. Just last Oct, told doc I was frustrated with 'weightloss efforts' post major illness, weight gain and an enduring med induced, rip-roaring appetite. Further, that I considered the appetite an unnatural/out of whack appetite and that the appetite did not seem responsive to a 'keto/low carb' approach.
- Part of Doc's assessment was gain and appetite was elevated, and because of set point theory, body would resist weight loss, and appetite would tend to remain elevated, for maybe a long while, perhaps permanently.
A (more) typical situation /example and understanding would be what the Biggest Losers experienced after rapid weight loss - an increasingly elevated appetite after rapid weightloss, (lower energy ?) & subsequent weight re-gain.
- In part because of natural increases in hormones affecting appetite, and
- In part to a natural lowered energy level in the body as the body attempts to conserve energy (seen in reduced subconcious fidgetness/NEAT movements.)
Alternative - overcoming set point theory idea. Once head a doctor suggest that speed of loss matters. The idea was - if you lose slowly, like 1 lb/week or slower, the body does not seem to resist loss, does not seem to encorage regain as it does with rapid loss. It was a fundraiser show on Public Broadcsting, can not remember the Doctor's name. It was on a broad range of related topics, and 'how to evade' the set point issue caught my attention. Maybe a Dr Blackburn, Cleveland Clinic? Could not find the program in search.
Further thought - but what about older people or people with chronic illness and limited mobility...
- These people may not be able to increase exercise to overcome appetite signaling
Which leads me to.... what if? Appetite is triggered by metabolic adaptations and efficiencies from weightloss? OR post weightloss, is appetite retriggered from food eating patterns or, like for me, triggered by meds.
- What I mean is the growing body of evidence that - for some people -chemicals go wonky in the brain triggering appetite spikes, which begin to increase/grow (similar to increasing intoletance thresholds in alcohololics) into an insatiable drive, leading to a driving urge to overeat, which results in regain.
I wish this was figured out in a definitive way.
With ever increasing % of people getting sicker and fatter, losing and regaining… there is clearly a mental (attitudes, culture, behavioral) component... but along with that... there likely is a real physical dynamic within the body for many people that needs to be definitively identified and understood - so that effective therapeutic approaches can be developed and offered to people impacted by this dynamic.
The chatbot setpoint there is hope part of the theory
Here is a snippet from the chatbot in support of the idea that slow loss might evade the set point/metabolic adaptation rebound effect : (Chatbot said)
- While altering the set point is difficult, it is not impossible. Gradual, sustained changes in diet and physical activity, implemented over time and with appropriate support, can allow the body's systems to adapt to a new, lower weight.[16]
- This slow adaptation is crucial; rapid weight loss, often associated with restrictive "fad diets," typically results in a "yo-yo effect" where weight is lost and then quickly regained because the body's physiological systems do not have sufficient time to adjust the new lower weight.[16]
- The combination of the set point theory and metabolic adaptation mechanisms means that the "energy balance" required for weight maintenance is not static.
/end chatbot snippet
Personal conclusion - To me, that means we are not stuck and we can manage our own weight.
/end comment/thought 1
On to read further for post #2
1
